Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
The restrictive chain of command and somewhat "automatted" battle lineup in the Russian army results from a general distrust of higher ranks into subordinate ranks, and from limited communication networks that did not allow as individualised command-and-control decisions as in NATO armies where subordnnate ranks are left with greater freedoms and space for flexibility.
|
To be fair, the Soviets are also very much interested in good control and speed. The "parade-ground" tactics of the Soviet Army may give up any chance of a casualty-free attack, but:
1) It is easy to control, thus has the highest probability of working if an immediate attack is required (such as in meeting engagement). If you try and launch a sudden attack and everyone is working out his own solution with the terrain, the attack will likely to break apart.
2) The support phase of the artillery offensive can be concentrated into a few minutes, thus more guns can be ready to fire, at a higher rate. Remember, to a great extent modern overwatch (fire-and-maneuver and all that) and terrain-usage tactics really came because artillery CANNOT fully suppress defenders. The West adopts overwatch. The Soviets try to create the conditions for artillery to successfully suppress the defenders, including the use of direct fire artillery where necessary.
3) In minimizing the amount of time used for the attack, even with a higher casualty rate the Soviets minimize the disruption to the advancing column behind it. Taking (lots of) time to use terrain works at the tactical level, but while you are doing that, the operational column behind you is forced to stop, and eat more NATO airstrikes. The Soviets will probably gladly trade some companies to be allowed to continue to move.
There is actually an article in the American
Military Review back in 1989, that basically says the American (NATO) practice of overwatch doesn't work even in exercises, and maybe they should incorporate more Soviet techniques into their approach.